Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2017

14022799 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/022,799 09/10/2013 Hyun-Soo KIM 678-3807 DIV
(P17258-US1)
1052
66547 7590 07/03/2017
THF FARRFT T T AWFTRM PC
EXAMINER
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
TREHAN, AKSHAY
Melville, NY 11747 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/03/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUN-SOO KIM, SANG-HO KIM, SEONG-TAEK HWANG,
SANG-WOOK OH, and SUNG-CHEOL KIM
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,7991
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN D. HAMANN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3—14. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,799
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to character
recognition using a camera, and more particularly, to an apparatus and
method for optimizing user views by adjusting a size of characters in an
image received by means of a camera.” Spec. 1,11. 15—17. Claims 1 and 6
are illustrative of subject matter of the appeal and are reproduced below.
1. An apparatus for automatically adjusting a size of
characters using a camera, comprising:
a camera module for receiving an image with characters,
transmitting the received image, and automatically adjusting a
zoom ratio if a size of the characters does not fall within a
preset range, and the zoom ratio to be adjusted is smaller than
or equal to a maximum zoom ratio or the zoom ratio to be
adjusted is greater than or equal to a minimum zoom ratio;
a recognizer module for transmitting character
recognition results received after transmitting the image
received from the camera module;
an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) recognition
engine module for determining whether a size of characters in
the image received from the recognizer module falls within the
preset range; and
a display module for outputting the image,
wherein the display module displays a manual action
request message if the zoom ratio to be adjusted is greater than
the maximum zoom ratio or the zoom ratio to be adjusted is
smaller than the minimum zoom ratio.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the recognizer module
detects a line on which the characters exist and acquires the size
of the characters by calculating an average size of the
characters.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Dance et al. (US 6,922,487 B2;
2
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,799
issued July 26, 2005) (hereinafter “Dance”), Kurzweil et al. (US
2006/0017810 Al; published Jan. 26, 2006) (hereinafter “Kurzweil”), and
Nakajima (US 2001/0043229 Al; published Nov. 22, 2001).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings,
conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the February 23,
2016 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—12), (2) the May 5, 2016 Advisory
Action (“Adv. Act.” 2), and (3) the October 31, 2016 Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.” 2—7). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and
arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Display Module
Appellants argue the combination of Dance, Kurzweil, and
Nakajima fails to teach or suggest “the display module displays a
manual action request message if the zoom ratio to be adjusted is
greater than the maximum zoom ratio or the zoom ratio to be adjusted
is smaller than the minimum zoom ratio,” as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited, in relevant part, in claim 7. App. Br. 5—10; Reply
Br. 2—5. As to Dance,2 Appellants argue it instead “merely disclose[s]
that a display module displays a manual action request message if the
zoom ratio needs to be adjusted.” App. Br. 5—8 (citing Dance Fig. 8
2 We do not reach Appellants’ arguments regarding Kurzweil and Nakajima
because, as discussed herein, the Examiner’s findings regarding Dance’s
teachings are sufficient to show the combination teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation.
3
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,799
(a)—(d); col. 7,1. 45 — col. 8,1. 11; col. 9,11. 27—34). Appellants also
argue that the Examiner improperly relies on Appellants’
Specification (i.e., impermissible hindsight analysis). Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Dance in particular, and in
combination with Kurzweil and Nakajima, teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. We agree with the Examiner that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “zoom ratio to be adjusted” (e.g.,
adjusting the zoom) includes “increasing/decreasing zoom function”
by manually “repositioning a camera closer (i.e. equates to zooming
in) or further away (i.e. equates to zooming out).” Ans. 3 (citing
Spec. 35—37) (emphasis omitted).
As to Dance, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation via its teachings of displaying an
indicator for manually adjusting the zoom (i.e., resizing) based on
image resolution feedback relating to desired minimum and maximum
resolutions. See Ans. 2 (citing Dance col. 2,11. 12—26, Fig. 8
(showing visual indicators (i.e., messages) for the user to move the
camera down (down arrow) or move the camera up (up arrow)). This
Examiner-cited portion of Dance’s specification recites:
Broadly speaking, a first aspect of the invention is to
provide an indication to the user of whether the resolution
(size) of text characters in the image is smaller than a desired
minimum for OCR, or whether the resolution is larger than a
desired maximum.
Preferably, the indication includes a guide as to the
corrective action the user should take to improve the quality of
the image for OCR. For example, if the resolution is too small,
the indication may be a “down” indicator to indicate that the
user should move the camera closer to the document object, to
4
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,799
increase the image resolution. Alternatively, if the resolution is
too large, the indication may be an “up” indicator to indicate
that the user should move the camera further from the
document object, to decrease the image resolution.
Dance col. 2,11. 12—26 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 2 (citing
Dance col. 2,11. 31—41 (teaching “increasing] the zoom
magnification” by “moving the camera closer” and “decreasing] the
zoom magnification” by “moving the camera further” away)); Final
Act. 4 (citing Dance col. 8,11. 6—11 (“If the ratio exceeds rmax, then the
user is prompted to move the camera up . . . .”).
Further, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner impermissibly
relies on hindsight (Reply Br. 4) when citing to the Specification.
Rather, the Examiner cites to the Specification to show that the
Examiner’s interpretation for “zoom ratio to be adjusted” is consistent
with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (providing claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification); see also Spec. 7,11. 17—18 (equating the terms “zoom
ratio” and “zoom magnification”). We also note that although Dance
does not use the same language as the claims (“zoom ratio”), there is
no requirement in an obviousness analysis for the prior art to “contain
a description of the subject matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis
verbis.” In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978).
(2) Recosnizer module
Appellants argue the combination of Dance, Kurzweil, and
Nakajima fails to teach or suggest that “the recognizer module detects
a line on which the characters exist and acquires the size of the
5
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,799
characters by calculating an average size of the characters,” as recited
in claim 6 and recited in commensurate scope in claim 12. App. Br.
11—13; Reply Br. 7—8. As to Dance,3 Appellants argue “[njowhere
does FIG. 10, Col. 2, lines 31-52, or any other part of Dance disclose
that the recognizer module detects a line on which the characters exist
and acquires the size of the characters by calculating an average size
of the characters, as recited in Claim 6.” App. Br. 12; see also id.
(arguing “FIG. 10 of Dance is merely a block diagram illustrating
interconnections of components of the camera.”).
The Examiner finds Dance teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Ans. 6; Final Act. 8. More specifically, the Examiner
finds “Dance teaches per Figure 10, a processor 86 containing both
the OCR recognition engine and recognition module.” Ans. 6 (citing
Dance Fig. 10); Final Act. 8 (citing same). The Examiner also finds
that Dance teaches or suggests that “text size is determined by
identifying heights of text lines (a length measured in pixels), wherein
the text height is calculated by identifying a predominant length
corresponding to the average character height in pixels.” Ans. 6
(citing Dance col. 2,11. 42—52); Final Act. 8 (citing Dance col. 2,11.
31-52).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our
own. Dance teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Dance
Fig. 10; col. 2,11. 31—52. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
3 We do not reach Appellants’ arguments regarding Kurzweil and Nakajima
because, as discussed herein, the Examiner’s findings regarding Dance’s
teachings are sufficient to show the combination teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation.
6
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,799
arguments, which are largely conclusory. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(holding that “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art”).
Furthermore, Appellants have not shown good cause as to why
any arguments raised in the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 7—8) relating
to Dance’s teachings “not [being] the same as detecting a single line
on which the characters exist, as in Claim 6” could not have been
presented earlier. As such, these arguments have not been considered,
and are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (finding absent a showing of good cause,
the Board is not required to address arguments in the Reply Brief that
could have been presented in the principal Appeal Brief). We also
note that Appellants’ argument, at least facially, appears contrary to
controlling precedent. See 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeln,
Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“As a general rule, the
words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or
more.’”).
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings and reasoning above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, as well as dependent
claims 3—5, 8—11, 13, and 14, as Appellants do not provide separate
arguments for their patentability. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
7
Appeal 2017-003462
Application 14/022,799
of dependent claims 6 and 12 based on our above findings and reasoning.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8